Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 45
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation: YamiRider1316's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    263

    160mm fork on 10' DB mission 2????

    Thinking about replacing the 150mm fox fork on my Mission with a 160mm fox talas. Is this ok to do? Would love to have the on the fly lock down ability and the extra travel wouldnt hurt either since ive been doin some bigger hits lately. Just kind of worried if it will screw up the geometry, HT angle and what not. Any feedback would be great. Thanks in advance

  2. #2
    Let the good times roll.
    Reputation: miniwisejosh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    1,156
    Nope. Won't screw up the geo. HA on mine with a Lyrik 160mm is 67 degrees, which is still pretty steep IMO. Besides...the '10 M4 comes stock with a 160mm fork

  3. #3
    Singletrack Slayer
    Reputation: DavidNeiles's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,927
    no worries
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails 160mm fork on 10' DB mission 2????-dsc02127.jpg  

    ~~~~~~Singletrack Slayer~~~~~~~

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    468
    you could go with a 180
    2011 transition 250
    2009 DB scapegoat

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation: YamiRider1316's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    263
    sweet good to know. Yea i was thinkin about the 180 but i still climb alot with this bike so im thinkin the 160 will be bout right. Can only seem to find the talas with the 160/120 option instead of the 160/130/100 option like whats on the mission 4. Can you only get that fork if you get the m4? Also the 160 has the 20mm thru axle as opposed to the 15mm. Does this mean im going to have to invest in a new hub as well or do they make a conversion kit or something?

  6. #6
    Let the good times roll.
    Reputation: miniwisejosh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    1,156
    Quote Originally Posted by YamiRider1316 View Post
    sweet good to know. Yea i was thinkin about the 180 but i still climb alot with this bike so im thinkin the 160 will be bout right. Can only seem to find the talas with the 160/120 option instead of the 160/130/100 option like whats on the mission 4. Can you only get that fork if you get the m4? Also the 160 has the 20mm thru axle as opposed to the 15mm. Does this mean im going to have to invest in a new hub as well or do they make a conversion kit or something?
    You will definitely need a new front wheel for 20mm TA

    I have a Lyrik U-Turn 160-115mm. I've tried all the settings just out of curiosity. 120mm on a Mission feels weird to me, even for climbing. 145mm is about the lowest I can tolerate. 160mm travel feels just fine for climbing. You just need to adjust the cockpit accordingly with a forward saddle position and low handlebars. At least that what works for me.

    My #1 recommdation for Fox is the 160mm Van 36. It has the RC2 damper instead of RLC, which gives you more useful adjustments. If you really want air and travel adjust, consider the TALAS 180. RC2 damper, 180mm for DH bombing, and 140mm for general riding/climbing. Or forget Fox altogether and get one of the Lyriks. All of those are sweet

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    124
    Also the head angle wont change from a 160mm 36 and a 180mm 36. I believe they both have the same axle to crown height.

  8. #8
    Let the good times roll.
    Reputation: miniwisejosh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    1,156
    Quote Originally Posted by bballboy388 View Post
    Also the head angle wont change from a 160mm 36 and a 180mm 36. I believe they both have the same axle to crown height.
    No. The Fox 180mm forks are almost as long as 40s at 200mm.

    545mm - Fox 36 160mm
    565mm - Fox 36 180mm
    571mm - Fox 40 200mm


    http://www.sicklines.com/2010/04/17/...-180mm-and-40/

    Now I should add that longer travel means more sag, which in turn means less difference in effective ride height than the static a2c specs suggest.

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation: YamiRider1316's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    263
    ah jeez now you got me thinkin about the 180. Decisions, decisions. Is there a big weight difference between the 160 and the 180? And wont the 180 put a lot of added stress on the frame? Im a bigger guy and ride pretty hard and i dont think i could afford a new frame if i broke one. But the extra travel would be really really nice especially given the terrain around here. Also, im going to be throwin a hammerschmidt on as well when i make this swap and im trying to counter the weight gain with xx components but with the added weight of the fork im a bit leery of my bike turning into a tank lol. Any thoughts?

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation: YamiRider1316's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    263
    guess i could of just checked the fox website. Seems to be a little under a 1 pound difference between the 2. Hmmm.

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    124
    Sorry about that guess I read that wrong somewhere.

  12. #12
    Singletrack Slayer
    Reputation: DavidNeiles's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,927
    BTW The M4 and 2011 Talas is only a 2 step 160/120, the DB site was wrong on that, and it is a RLC not a RC2, I like the 2 travel options but hate RLC Why do I need lockout, I want C adjustments!! That was the only thing that was a surprise, again I much prefer 120/160 and it makes sense and less issues! Get a 180/140 Talas or the 160/120, GO Rc2 IMO
    ~~~~~~Singletrack Slayer~~~~~~~

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    689
    I've ridden both setups quite extensively (2011 goat, 2010 Mission). I'm 6'3 240 and ride everything from big jumps to xc on the Mission. As far as which fork to go with. I'd stick with the 160 because of it's versatility. The fox 180 Float really is an amazing fork...really amazing. And yes it is almost exactly 1" higher (160=22" from center of axle to top of crown/23" for the 180 +/-) than the 160. To be totally honest, I really think the Mission platform with the 180 is superbly dialed with the taller fork for jumps, freeride, gravity stuff, and even xc if it's not too steep. It really depends on what you're doing on it. With the 160 it is pretty balanced and a more all around feel. It is still plenty capable on big jumps and FR stuff but gives up a bit to the 180 in feel and overall confidence when things get serious. Good luck!

  14. #14
    mtbr member
    Reputation: YamiRider1316's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    263
    thanks for the input everybody. At this point im def leaning towards the 180. Now I just gotta wait for payday.

  15. #15
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    468
    Dude stop thinking and buy the 180!!! I beat the sh1t out of my scapegoat with the 180 on it. Bike came with 160..... If you wanna climb find fork with a lock out
    2011 transition 250
    2009 DB scapegoat

  16. #16
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    237
    Just remember that while the 180mm fork will slacken the head angle it will also raise the BB height considerably. This will make the bike feel tippy and hard to find traction on fast corners, and make it feel really tall. I have a 160mm float on my Mission and am going to drop the front travel to 150mm and use an offset bushing in the rear to keep the head tube angle the same. Right now with the 160mm fork and no offset bushing my BB height is 14.25, which IMO is way too tall for an all mountain bike. I am shooting for somewhere between 13.5 and 13.75 BB height after the changes. This should make it feel more stable and comfortable at speed. It's not the amount of travel that counts as much as the quality, and the overall bike geometry.

  17. #17
    Let the good times roll.
    Reputation: miniwisejosh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    1,156
    The Angleset is another good option. My Mission's HA is at 67 degrees now, which is too steep IMO. The 1 degree cup would drop that to 66, lower the BB a bit, and keep the seat tube angle steep for good pedalling.

  18. #18
    mtbr member
    Reputation: YamiRider1316's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    263
    yeah the BB height is one of the reasons why I'm still considering the 160. Seems like with the 180 that would put the BB height in the 15" range which seems really up there.

  19. #19
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    689

    Not to beat a dead horse but...

    If you are running a 180mm fork you most likely will need to be running a tad more sag to match the plush performance and use of the 180. Don't get caught up in the numbers. Get caught up in the ride. If the bike is setup right it is one sweet ride that rails the corners! No joke.

  20. #20
    mtbr member
    Reputation: YamiRider1316's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    263
    Well I've settled on the 180 talas. Is the kashima coating worth an extra 200$? Also is there any other ways i could counter the BB height increase?

  21. #21
    Let the good times roll.
    Reputation: miniwisejosh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    1,156
    An Angleset would lower the BB a bit, but using that with a 180mm fork would be an awful idea. You'd probably end up with a 64 degree HA.

    Don't bother with kashima unless you want the gold bling. Better to save that $$ for a PUSH tune in a year or 2 when the fork needs its first service.

  22. #22
    mtbr member
    Reputation: YamiRider1316's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    263
    what about offset shock bushings? anybody have any experience with those? Given the knucklebox set up it looks like i could really only fit one in the top mount. Would that even make a difference?

  23. #23
    Let the good times roll.
    Reputation: miniwisejosh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    1,156
    Same problem. Lower and slacker. Slacker is not good if you already have a 180mm fork, unless you only want to do DH. How much do you care about keeping the BB low? If that's a big priority, I really think you'd be happier with a 160mm coil fork and angleset or offset bushings. The Lyrik U-turn DH on my bike feels very similar to a Fox Van 180 other than height and weight. The main reason IMO to choose between 160mm and 180mm forks these days is to get the geometry you want. Actual suspension performance is pretty close either way.

  24. #24
    More Riding Less Internet
    Reputation: thom9719's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    511
    I would get the 160. It's all you need on that bike. I have a 160 on mine and I put it through more than most and it's been great. A 180 would make the BB too tall IMO and not balance well with the rear end.

    -KT
    Diamondback Development Force.

  25. #25
    mtbr member
    Reputation: YamiRider1316's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    263
    Yea but with the 180 couldnt i just leave it locked down to the 140 for all around riding which will keep the BB height down and then if i wanna huck it or bomb some DH flip it back to the 180? Or am i completely off in this assumption?

Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Fork help with HD 160mm
    By climnron in forum Ibis
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 05-31-2011, 02:04 PM
  2. 160mm Fork which to get?
    By hitechredneck in forum Shocks and Suspension
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 11-17-2009, 10:22 AM
  3. 160mm fork for SJ
    By mtnbkmann in forum Specialized
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 07-24-2009, 03:11 PM
  4. 160mm Fork help.
    By hitechredneck in forum All Mountain
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 05-30-2009, 02:30 PM
  5. Best 160mm DH fork
    By klean in forum Shocks and Suspension
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10-15-2007, 05:37 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •